This is most apparent when you have cases such as the Congolese man, a convicted rapist awaiting deportation, who is now allowed to remain in the UK in order to wed a fellow African.  His fiancee happens to be a German national.  According to EU law, EU citizens are allowed to move around at will.  Being married to her this rapist will have the right to remain.  Of course, nothing is yet set in stone, but on the surface, that is how it appears.  It seems that EU law could take precedence.

If I was liberal-minded, I might argue that he has served his time, therefore, he has won his freedom and should be given another chance.  That’s what would happen to a British citizen.  Of course, the fact that he was not a British citizen and had betrayed the trust of the natives meant that he lost any rights; therefore, he should be deported. 

I have to admit I am narrow-minded when it comes to these issues.  If the man was supposed to be deported, he should not be allowed to remain.  However, if he is allowed to stay solely for the purpose of a wedding, boot him after the wedding.  If his wife wants to stay, they will have to remain physically separated.  EU law should not force the UK to accept into its bosom a convicted felon.  Other people have been banned from entering the UK, so why can’t this criminal?

If the EU wants to function as a cohesive unit, perhaps they should consider that a convicted felon of one EU country should not be allowed to be in any of the other EU countries unless he/she is a national of that country.

The man had checked to make sure before he undressed in public, so it’s highly likely that there is no law against public nudity.  However, I find that shocking. 

I have nothing against the human body, but modesty should be preserved in public.  How could it be wrong for nudity to be present on TV during times that children may be watching, yet it’s okay for someone to be nude in public?  How could it be wrong for people to be nude on the beach in Brighton, except in the designated naturist beach, but okay in London?

What the BBC don’t get is that they are creating a monopoly by issuing and collecting TV license fees for themselves only.  They do not like the idea that a very small percentage of the fees should go to their so-called competitors.  It just points to their greed.

What they also don’t get is that not only are their executives getting exorbitant pay, but some of their regular staff.  92K for a simple newsreader?  Millions for Jonathan Ross?  What are they thinking?  All that wonderful talent at their disposal and they don’t want to let go?  Puh-lease!!!

If they cut back on some salaries, they might have extra money in their budget and not worry too much about the TV license fees.  The quality of their staff would not be compromised in the current economic situation.  They know that jobs are limited out there.  If TV and radio dropped Ross, do you think he could make it on his own as a stand-up?  I doubt it.  He’s not that funny.  He may not have lost all his fans, but while he was gone, did anyone really miss him?

O’Leary’s statements about cost-cutting plans have been attention-grabbing, but I know of only one that has come to fruition – the on-line check-in.  Most of the ideas are not new or unique.  For example, the “fat tax”, which has been suggested in other countries as well.  The US is notorious for this and obese people have to buy two seats.  It is a reasonable concession as morbidly obese people cannot safely squeeze into those small economy seats.  At best, they can buy first class tickets to get more room.  Though obese people may complain and try to squeeze themselves into narrow seats, they impinge on passengers beside them.  So, I have no arguments against the “fat tax”.

However, some other ideas are silly, like the toilet and toilet paper charge.  But, the latest sounds somewhat dangerous – standing tickets.  I can just imagine people strapped against some platform like the Gravitron at the amusement parks.  It may be okay during lift-off and in flight, but what about landing?  I think the safety issues need to be addressed.  Of course, Mr. O’Leary got the idea from the Chinese, so he should investigate whether they’ve had any serious liability issues there.  Then again, will the Chinese be honest about that?

Meanwhile, Kim Jong-Il is not expected to last long as he is supposedly getting weaker from a previous stroke.  The question of his successor is still unresolved, though there were reports his youngest son was going to take over.

In another part of the world, almost half-way across the globe, we have the elections in Iran, whose results are controversial.  Both sides claim victory; however, the electoral commission has declared Ahmadinejad as the winner.  Of course they would, they work for the government, don’t they?  Mr. Mousavi is contesting the results on the grounds of voting irregularities.  As if that is new or unexpected.  Mr. Ahmadinejad may have the support of the lower classes, and Mr. Mousavi the middle class, but there were two other candidates who may have split some of the votes.  I would not put it past Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters to have rigged it such that their own votes would be counted.  It is a very corrupt country.

Iran’s voting is similar to the AV model and if Mr. Ahmadinejad is declared the winner, I think this is good enough reason to not even consider it for the UK.  Though, if the commission’s report is true and accurate, Mr. Ahmadinejad would win under whichever model, the fact that other parties may pull votes away, thereby preventing the overthrow of such a corrupt government, points out the truth that FPTP really can help kick out the incumbent.  Of course, I agree with Mr. Mousavi that there were most likely voting irregularities, but unfortunately, in such a country, I would not expect the government to take it seriously or for the repressed peoples to protest too loudly.

Was it really any surprise that Madonna would win her adoption appeal?  I mean, she managed to adopt her first Malawian baby without fulfilling the residency status, so why did the Malawian court go through the pretence of rejecting her adoption bid based on the residency status this time?

Neither of the two Malawian children are really “orphans”.  She brings her son, David, back to Malawi to visit his father occasionally.  And, “Mercy’s” supposed father wants to keep her.  (I say supposed because they haven’t done DNA testing yet.)

Now, some might argue that Mercy’s father is unfit because he abandoned her mother when she was pregnant.  But he had admitted that he was immature at the time, and he wants to be a father now. Should that be denied him?  He may not have a lot of money, but when a person has decided that they want to be a parent, they will work hard to support the child.  If he fails, perhaps, consider helping him out.  He might even decide at that time that the best thing for the child is adoption by someone else.  But the court doesn’t seem to be considering his side.

It’s hard to turn down the kind of money Madonna’s offering.  After all, she also supports many of the orphans in Malawi.  It’s like forced adoption.  As I’ve said before, why didn’t Madonna choose a child that does not have any family involved – a real orphan?  Mercy even has extended family; I’m surprised she was in the orphanage.  Then, again, they probably couldn’t afford to keep her.  This extended family supports Madonna’s bid (I wonder how much they’re getting?).

So, celebrity status + money = “I get what I want”  (No wonder Gordon Brown is grasping at celebrities.)  At least, that’s the case in Malawi.  Here, in Britain, celebrities cannot push their way into an orphanage and demand that they be allowed to take any child they please.  Oh, wait a minute, celebrities don’t want British orphans.

One of the reasons I believe Britain should not fully join in with the EU is because of the health system.  Only last week, the Times had reported on the botched surgeries performed on patients in this country by some Scandinavian surgeons.  In the article, it was reported that the GMC has had to double the number of disciplinary action against EU doctors.  Of course, I cannot speak for the non-EU doctors as the problems addressed involved only EU doctors.  This is because doctors in the EU are given full access to every country within the EU, regardless of their training, competence and English skills.  This, despite the fact that training in the different countries can vary tremendously.  The article cited the fact that in Italy, a doctor could qualify with very little patient contact. 

Contrast this with the treatment that non-EU doctors get.  In order to be registered with the GMC, the non-EU doctor must prove that he/she can speak English adequately, even if said doctor is a native English-speaker.  This proof can come in the form of the IELTS or references who can attest to their English skills.  They also need to either pass the PLAB (a two-step medical competence exam) or provide evidence in other ways of their competence, such as post-graduate certification exams.  In addition, they must state their fitness to practice.  Any blight on their record would practically ruin their chances of being registered. 

EU doctors can skip all these steps and get right on the register.  Even those doctors who have been disciplined in their own countries.  This is because information on disciplinary action is not required – it is voluntary, and the GMC is not allowed to check on this because of EU rules.  Is this fair?  Is this what Britain wants?

Because of new immigration rules, non-EU doctors are barred from entering the country and getting a job unless no one else is available to fill the position.  But EU doctors have free rein.  There may be disgust and frustration that non-EU doctors, who were initially recruited during a shortage of British doctors, had taken over all the jobs when the supply of British-trained doctors increased; but now there is competition from the EU and no guarantees that those doctors are appropriately trained.

I cannot even compare this to the US.  At least there, the quality of training programmes are regulated by the same authority. The EU does not have such a system in place.  Medical boards in the different states of the US share information on their doctors, so that it is practically impossible for a doctor to move without his past following him.  And, unless they can prove that they were equivalently trained as a US doctor, any foreign doctor may have to undergo further training in the US before they can practice. 

Shouldn’t the GMC be allowed to question the competence of every doctor within the UK borders?  Apparently, not if Britain is part of the EU.

Look at the result of the G20 summit.  They talked a lot of nonsense about sanctions against tax havens.  Yeah?  What has changed?  Nothing.

The US and the UN have been discussing sanctions against North Korea.  Result: nuclear testing.  These people are BELLIGERENT!  The more talk of sanctions, the more they cry, “Poor us!  Look at how hostile everyone is to us.”.

The UK may not care so much.  It’s more of a US-South Korea issue against North Korea.  Attention is on the UN and US reactions, but any actions by North Korea is bound to affect the entire world.  Especially if they threaten to use nuclear bombs.

Should North Korea and Iran join forces to use their nuclear weapons, we could see WWIII.  Some will argue that it would never reach that state because the US and its allies have even more weapons.  But the US are not likely to perform further preemptive attacks.  They’ve learned their lesson in recent history.

So, what does that mean?  Are they going to wait to see if North Korea launches a full-scale attack before they do anything?  Yes, there are special UN meetings, but do you seriously think the North Koreans will listen to anything?  They’re waiting for the world to beg them for mercy.

Yet, we can’t bend over backwards to appease them.  They are overgrown, immature brats!  How can they expect anyone to be friendly towards them when they continually show themselves to be unreasonable.

What the North Koreans need is a change of leaders and a change of government.  It’s unfortunate that the public is probably brainwashed to go along with whatever their government wants.  I’m sure they are as unhappy in their lot as most suppressed people are.

Anyhow, I never joined MySpace.  Back when it first came in and a classmate tried to encourage everyone to visit him there, we thought they were computer geeks.  But it grew like a cancer. 

Then came Facebook.  It sounded even more intimidating, and when I first visited it, the block at the front made me feel I was about to enter into a secret society, like the Masons or a witch’s coven.  At least MySpace gave you the feeling that everyone was out in the open and you can browse around.  Of course, that also made it more accessible to the criminal minds. I left Facebook.  I will admit that I did recently join Facebook at the express invitation of a family member.  I was not comfortable with it and I am still not comfortable with it.  I have had some friends find me and we communicated.  But I still worrry about what I say.  I can’t tell what can and can’t be read/seen by everyone else.  It’s not like emailing (though, of course, those messages can go wayward, or be sent/forwarded to the wrong people as well). 

Of course, the latest is Twitter.  I’ll say this, I just don’t get it.  I understand the concept.  I just don’t understand the craze.  Social networking is a worldwide phenomenon and it sure makes the world a whole lot smaller. I suppose that if I wanted to feel social, I would make physical contact, rather than virtual contact.  I don’t mind staying in touch with friends via the internet, but to make new friends through these sites is not something that inspires confidence in me.

To add to that, employers are monitoring their own employees via these social networking sites.  There have been stories of people being fired for something they said or did while on Facebook or Twitter.  Surely, that must make people more careful of what they do and say now.  Some people are angry about Street View, others wish they get rid of CCTV.  There are advantages to these technologies, and one bad case in a million is not worth talking about.  But it does feel like a Big Brother society when everything we do in public and private is being monitored anonymously. 

The latest story is the probe into a teacher in Scotland.  I agree with the schools that those social network sites are prohibited during school hours, and the teacher is not very professional if she is Twittering while she is at work.  If I found out our MPs were doing that while at Westminster, I’d feel the same way.  What a waste of time.  I don’t care what she says about her students as long as she does not reveal any sensitive information.  I’m sure we all talk about people we know without revealing their identities.  I disagree, however, with the school’s stance that teacher are not allowed to have their own blogs.  As long as they are blogging in their own time, why should this be a problem to the school?  If she has her own blog to discuss dogs or cats or being a parent, is this wrong?  I’m glad I’m not a teacher.

A sociology lecturer at university walked into the classroom for our very first lecture and wrote on the board, “Why are people so dumb?”  We thought it was a joke.  He handed out big long stickers with this phrase on it for us to apply to windows, cars, etc.  He said it was to remind us of the lecture.  The point of the lecture was that we all do dumb things for dumb reasons.  Even the most intelligent of us will succumb to this low point.  Though some mistakes may appear to be unreasonable to the majority of us, it may not appear so to the perpetrator of the dumb act at the time of the action.  Other times, we are moved to do dumb things out of societal or group pressures.

Perhaps, it is time to remind people that we are all dumb and will do dumb things in our lives.  Maybe kids should hear that they are dumb and do dumb things and that they’re likely to do more dumb things in the future.  In order to prevent doing these dumb things, they need to stop and think before they act.  Maybe that might get them to stop and think more.  We live in a society where no one likes to be called “dumb” or “stupid”.  Use it to advantage.  Tell kids they’re dumb for wanting to have sex at 12, smoking, doing drugs, etc.  Stupidity doesn’t just apply to doing bad things at the wrong times, it’s also not doing good things at the right times.  Such as, not taking advantage of opportunities when they are given to us.  Stupidity results in regrets.  Allow kids to make some mistakes, but allow them the opportunity to learn from their own or others’ mistakes.  But do not tolerate repeated mistakes.

Dumb kids grow up to be dumb adults.  Recent events have highlighted that.  But instead of sincere apologies for being dumb, instead of admitting that they did such stupid things for stupid reasons and they cannot understand what they were thinking at the time, the MPs wanted to stick to their defence of “it was within the rules”.  “Temporary insanity” is a defence, but not always a useful one.  I’d have more respect for an MP if he admitted he was stupid and didn’t reason things out at the time of the offence.  After all, I’ve just said we’re all dumb.

You know how you do dumb things to cover up other dumb things and it just compounds your problems?  Well, if you can’t change the first dumb thing, just admit that you did a dumb thing because you were dumb.  Sir Fred did a dumb thing by allowing RBS to fail.  He apologise, but didn’t admit he was dumb.  Instead, he compounded his stupidity by taking more money than he deserved.

Now, the party leaders have agreed to some reform measures in the expenses system.  Seems fairly straightforward.  I can’t see what else will need to change after the review into the expense claims and the expense system is concluded.  Seems like a no-brainer job for the independent committee to work on.  Makes you wonder how they could not have come up with these same guidelines two weeks ago and avoided the full brunt of the scandal.  Oh, yes, it’s because we’re all dumb.  We needed lots of time to think these obvious things up.  Or, perhaps, we needed to understand public reaction before we could proceed.  Years of cotton-woolling within the lifestyles of the rich and famous have made some of us lose touch with reality.

Many of us think “That can’t happen to me”.  No one thinks that more often than kids.  And as long as they think that, they will do dumb things.  Adults are no different.  The reality is that anything can happen to anyone.  You are dumb if you don’t believe that.  Perhaps, if we can all sit back and accept that we are dumb and are prone to do dumb things unless we are very careful, we might be a little more careful with our actions next time.  We sure don’t want to appear even more dumb than our neighbours.